> more traffic - more noise - more pollution

These are often true, but not inherently so. I've lived in remote rural, suburban, and dense city environments. My dense city had disadvantages, but it was quiet and had little traffic or pollution. In my experience the suburban environment is the worst for all three once you get off the residential streets, there's loud, polluting traffic (3/3).

In two of the places I lived, I couldn't keep the window open due to the constant tire noise. It wasn't an issue in the densest place I lived, which was a low-car-traffic place and pleasant to be outside in. Now, I live right next to a freight rail yard, but I don't find the train noise grating like the highway noise.

> downside: - more traffic - more noise - more pollution - more anonymity, crime (people in small towns leave their doors unlocked and say hi on the sidewalk)

These aren't all foregone conclusions. For example, Arlington, VA (11th highest density county in the US) most likely has the lowest combined traffic/homicide fatality rate in the country. Traffic peaked in 2000, and by 2015 it had gone down 20% while population rose 20%. This of course required a lot of planning and investment, but that is enabled by the higher property tax revenues that more housing brings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-18/how-ar...

> Increasing housing supply does not decrease home values

This contradicts every common theory of economics I've heard.

- more traffic: compare to now? or pre-COVID? because now it is already lower than pre-COVID, at least in SF. I have lived here for more than 20 years, and only now I see seeing empty parking spots around my house. I would never see this 10 years ago. So, if we double the population, yes there would be some additional traffic. But how would it compare to 10 years ago ?

- more noise: From traffic? electrification is making transportation quieter than before. From people in the streets? again the streets are way less busy compare to pre-COVID at least in SF. People either do not work, or work from home, get delivered everything from movies (Netflix), to food (UberEats) or shopping (Amazon), etc. foot traffic is WAY lower than pre-COVID. So if we double the population, yes there would be some additional foot traffic. But how would it compare to 10 years ago ?

- more pollution: From traffic? electrification is offsetting some of it. From trash, well those people were trashing elsewhere too.

- more anonymity, crime: That is cultural. Tokyo is fairly dense city, and with fairly low crime compare to US standards.

"The people who benefit most from higher density tend to be young professionals": Go visit a major city in Europe (Paris, Barcelona, etc) that has high density, and you would see lots of different generations, not only young professionals. It is possible to live from cradle to grave in those cities. It does not have to transition spot when you are young, professional and looking at dating. It could be where you go to kindergarten, up to university, work and retire.

I feel like the main thing that NIMBY fear is change, any change. Hausmann, where are you ?

> downside: - more traffic - more noise - more pollution - more anonymity, crime (people in small towns leave their doors unlocked and say hi on the sidewalk)

Ah, yes, we live in a black-and-white world where this always happens, and so does this:

> upside: - high paying, specialized jobs - specialized, high quality services - stores open late - better dating (more fish in the sea)

There plenty of VERY affluent rural-ish areas.

There are also plenty of very nice places to live with high density that have FAR less crime rates that typical rural America, minimal traffic or noise, and far less pollution than you can find anywhere remotely rural and industrial or even agricultural areas.

The reality is - there's a lot of Karens that will do anything they can to deny everyone else of anything else they can possibly deny.

That's a large component of NIMBYism. These types will find any reason to justify it.

I think you are conflating a number of factors. Increasing the supply of a good, when all other things are equal, decreases the price. Austin TX is a good example.

If increasing the amount and density of housing increases the desirability of a place thus increasing the value of the housing, this still has limits.

The SF bay area has had a housing shortage for 30 years. Its driven by people wanting to move in that have lots of money AND the refusal of local cities to allow housing to be built, also there isnt new land to build on. However the number of vacant plots in Mountain View is disgraceful.

If we allowed people to build high-rise apartments in downtown Mountain View rent would drop.

Well, increasing housing supply does not always decrease home value, but I also think the home value concern is a secondary distraction.

More saliently, I don't believe you're right to imply that "young professionals" only want to live in dense areas. Sometimes they have to, but that's something we can change.

Where are you thinking of when you say that young professionals move when density goes up? That does not track with my observations.

increasing supply while demand remains steady does actually lower prices.

NIMByism can be killed with a land value tax/a property tax that approximates LVT and vice versa.

It was kicked into overdrive in California thanks to prop 13 which capped property taxes.

I agree with this. People buy a place to live usually because they like the qualities of that place. Changes to those qualities affect their day to day experience, whereas changes to their primary residence value usually only materialize when they need to access that value.

To me the issue is that densification (in the US; can't speak to other countries) usually comes with more downsides than upsides.

Mainly this is because of the US's focus on cars: the biggest downside is usually increased traffic. Unfortunately it feels towns in the US do the bare minimum to address it, like adding some traffic lights and maybe a lane or two.

Instead I wish the US had more good examples of densification for existing residents, where along with the increased housing larger steps were made to improve the community. E.g. significantly expanded mass transit, bicycling infrastructure, community third places, etc. And I get it, these things are really expensive and hard to do. But turning densification into something that more clearly benefits the day-to-day experience of existing residents would do a LOT to combat NIMBYism.

The problem is when every neighborhood is NIMBY, something has to give or the problem will never be solved. At the end of the day, valuing aesthetics, parking, or quiet is a preference. Having shelter near jobs, schools and public transit is human necessity which is what should be prioritized.

Freezing the SFH neighborhood also doesn't protect the community long term, as NIMBYs believe. When supply gets restricted, prices go up. It prices out the local teachers, service workers, aging family, and even the NIMBY's own children get priced out, until now it's just a neighborhood of million dollar+ SFHs with no young families, no local workforce. It's economic segregation.

Continuing to allow local vetoes and restrictive zoning just pushes us out further and further into unsustainable suburban sprawl, without the transit to match, and boosting emissions.

Not popular in individualistic America, but when we have the housing crisis we do, the needs of the many are going to have to take priority over the needs of the few NIMBYs.

I've got to agree there. The whole article had the smell of somebody arguing with themself.

Mmmhmm, and the fact that it results in loads of money in NIMBY pockets at outsiders' expense is purely coincidental?

I don't believe you.

> most people

Citation needed*

You're entitled to whatever policy preferences you might have (within reason, I guess; this housing position is within reason).

Whether your surrounding community should honor that preference is a different question. Depending on where you live, your preference, and even those of the consensus of incumbent residents, can be more or less persuasive.

If you live out in the middle of nowhere --- an exurb, say, with large lots and built around people who have consciously chosen to opt into long commutes and out of metro hub and metro county services --- your neighborhood's preference against density can indeed be somewhat compelling. Though I'd note that states are moving towards a directional consensus that local governments should not be able to impose single-family exclusionary zoning preferences no matter where you are. To that whole scenario: big shrug.

On the other hand, if you're in an inner ring suburb, the equation changes sharply. Your community likely siphons high-dollar tax checks out of the regional school system fabric and into a mostly economically homogenous enclave of concentrated opportunity. You'd benefit from close connectivity to the metro hub, short commutes, economic spillover, all while walling yourself off from the area.

In that scenario, it is reasonable (and probably the straightforward correct policy) to ignore your personal preferences, and to think about the preferences of the entire region and of the prospective future residents density would enable.

It all depends.

Props to you both for honesty and understanding the economics.